Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Reflecting on the First Quarter
My name is Scott Aaron Stine, and I am a native resident of Snohomish County. I have spent the entirety of my adult life as a semi-professional writer and artist, and have sidelined as a fairly accomplished composer and musician. As a writer, I have several books and a fair number of short stories (and even a few articles) to my credit. (Don’t worry if you haven’t heard of me; it is doubtful that you have ever stumbled across my work, considering the obscure publications in which they have seen print.) As of late 2008, I decided to finally go to college in order to obtain a degree in Literature and/or Fine Arts, as my professional life has been a real struggle these last few years. With the validation of a degree, and the additional knowledge and experience I know college has to offer, I hope to change this in the years to come.
College—and, in particular, the English 98 course—has proven to be an invaluable experience for me. Not only has it met all of my expectations so far, it has also vindicated my belief that no one is ever too old for personal growth.
Writing as a skill and an art form is—as it should be—a never-ending process. There is always room to improve upon what one already knows, as well as to broaden ones voice. The writing process itself is key in strengthening ones proficiency—it cannot be overstated the importance of exercising ones skills regularly—but other factors also contribute to a writer’s facility to mold the written word into something exceptional and unique. The act of reading, everything and anything, is inarguably beneficial. Familiarity with what past wordsmiths have already put to paper gives a writer an edge, expands ones lexicon, and exposes one to an endless variety of voices with which to explore. Just as important is life experience itself, as this grounds our knowledge with an intimate perspective of the world surrounding us. These are some of the reasons why I, as a writer, have found college to be such a boon.
Unlike a high school English class, where one primarily learns the basic rules of grammar and composition by rote, a college course such as this requires the writer to constructively apply this knowledge and expand ones creative potential. The steadfast exercises force the writer to endeavor outside of ones comfort zone, avoiding the ruts formed by such boundaries, and elude stagnation. The emphasis on group interaction allows the writer to hear firsthand how a diverse group of people views and interprets ones work. This discussion forces the writer to look at ones own output more objectively, which is vital if one wishes to hone their skills and strengthen ones voice.
Due to certain inherent demands of this avocation, writers tend to be fairly sedentary creatures. Seclusion often comes with the territory, so the synergistic atmosphere of a classroom is advantageous when one has practiced their craft alone for any considerable length of time. This particular class not only allows for some much needed feedback from peers, it also gives the student an opportunity to expand ones worldview through Service Learning. By placing the student in a position that they may never have done on their own volition, the burgeoning writer finds oneself interacting with people from other walks of life with which one may be unfamiliar. Experience like this cannot simply be obtained from books, as you are seeing it filtered through the eyes of another person’s worldview; intimacy is crucial in expanding ones grasp of the human condition. So, I am extremely thankful to have been a part of this internship, as it has had a profound impact on me as an individual, and thus had an equally significant impact on me as a writer.
For this E-Portfolio, I have included four pieces produced within this class. For a piece that represents my ability to take a piece through the writing process, I chose my first MWA, a comparison/contrast paper entitled “Halloween: John Carpenter vs. Rob Zombie.” For a piece that demonstrates my ability to write effectively, I chose my second MWA, a definition essay entitled “Snuff: The Final Cut.” For a piece that demonstrates my ability to write analytically, I chose my third MWA, an argument essay entitled “The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” For my writer’s choice entry, I chose our very first assignment, the “Inventory of Being” essay with which we used to introduce ourselves to our instructor and classmates. I have also included a short humorous piece entitled “But I Digress…” in order to lighten the mood set by the progressively darker MWAs.
So, if you have some spare time, sit back, peruse the following examples of my college writing, and feel free to drop me a line with any feedback you may have. Enjoy!
College—and, in particular, the English 98 course—has proven to be an invaluable experience for me. Not only has it met all of my expectations so far, it has also vindicated my belief that no one is ever too old for personal growth.
Writing as a skill and an art form is—as it should be—a never-ending process. There is always room to improve upon what one already knows, as well as to broaden ones voice. The writing process itself is key in strengthening ones proficiency—it cannot be overstated the importance of exercising ones skills regularly—but other factors also contribute to a writer’s facility to mold the written word into something exceptional and unique. The act of reading, everything and anything, is inarguably beneficial. Familiarity with what past wordsmiths have already put to paper gives a writer an edge, expands ones lexicon, and exposes one to an endless variety of voices with which to explore. Just as important is life experience itself, as this grounds our knowledge with an intimate perspective of the world surrounding us. These are some of the reasons why I, as a writer, have found college to be such a boon.
Unlike a high school English class, where one primarily learns the basic rules of grammar and composition by rote, a college course such as this requires the writer to constructively apply this knowledge and expand ones creative potential. The steadfast exercises force the writer to endeavor outside of ones comfort zone, avoiding the ruts formed by such boundaries, and elude stagnation. The emphasis on group interaction allows the writer to hear firsthand how a diverse group of people views and interprets ones work. This discussion forces the writer to look at ones own output more objectively, which is vital if one wishes to hone their skills and strengthen ones voice.
Due to certain inherent demands of this avocation, writers tend to be fairly sedentary creatures. Seclusion often comes with the territory, so the synergistic atmosphere of a classroom is advantageous when one has practiced their craft alone for any considerable length of time. This particular class not only allows for some much needed feedback from peers, it also gives the student an opportunity to expand ones worldview through Service Learning. By placing the student in a position that they may never have done on their own volition, the burgeoning writer finds oneself interacting with people from other walks of life with which one may be unfamiliar. Experience like this cannot simply be obtained from books, as you are seeing it filtered through the eyes of another person’s worldview; intimacy is crucial in expanding ones grasp of the human condition. So, I am extremely thankful to have been a part of this internship, as it has had a profound impact on me as an individual, and thus had an equally significant impact on me as a writer.
For this E-Portfolio, I have included four pieces produced within this class. For a piece that represents my ability to take a piece through the writing process, I chose my first MWA, a comparison/contrast paper entitled “Halloween: John Carpenter vs. Rob Zombie.” For a piece that demonstrates my ability to write effectively, I chose my second MWA, a definition essay entitled “Snuff: The Final Cut.” For a piece that demonstrates my ability to write analytically, I chose my third MWA, an argument essay entitled “The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” For my writer’s choice entry, I chose our very first assignment, the “Inventory of Being” essay with which we used to introduce ourselves to our instructor and classmates. I have also included a short humorous piece entitled “But I Digress…” in order to lighten the mood set by the progressively darker MWAs.
So, if you have some spare time, sit back, peruse the following examples of my college writing, and feel free to drop me a line with any feedback you may have. Enjoy!
Preface to
Halloween: John Carpenter vs. Rob Zombie
Since this was to be my first Major Writing Assignment of my first quarter attending college, I decided to write about something with which I was already comfortable, namely film. Since high school, I have written extensively about cinema, and have penned countless film reviews and articles, so it seemed a natural choice. Since this was a contrast/comparison paper, it seemed like a perfect forum to compare a classic horror film with its modern day counterpart. Not only could I illustrate the differences between production values and style, I could also explore the major themes, and how they reflect the culture and time period in which they were filmed. In addition, I did not want to simply show how one was inferior or superior to the other, since in many ways these values are entirely subjective, so I decided to pick a film whose remake displayed some merit as well, but worked on a much different level. So, I took the film that officially kick-started the slasher genre, and the remake filmed by a shock rocker-turned filmmaker.
Prior to starting college this January, I had spent several years writing only sporadically, and had received practically no feedback on what little I did pen. Being that this was the first MWA of the quarter, the rough draft of this piece reflects it. Working on automatic, I had fallen into several stylistic ruts, and my predisposition to run-on sentences had again gotten out of control. Since I had been writing specifically to niche audiences for quite a few years—cinephiles in particular—I had forgotten how to reach a general audience. The feedback I received on this essay brought to light both of these issues, but hopefully my rewrite succeeds in rectifying this.
Prior to starting college this January, I had spent several years writing only sporadically, and had received practically no feedback on what little I did pen. Being that this was the first MWA of the quarter, the rough draft of this piece reflects it. Working on automatic, I had fallen into several stylistic ruts, and my predisposition to run-on sentences had again gotten out of control. Since I had been writing specifically to niche audiences for quite a few years—cinephiles in particular—I had forgotten how to reach a general audience. The feedback I received on this essay brought to light both of these issues, but hopefully my rewrite succeeds in rectifying this.
Halloween: John Carpenter vs. Rob Zombie
In recent years, it has become increasingly popular for Hollywood to produce remakes of classic (and not-so-classic) films. Such a production is a reflection of Hollywood’s lack of originality, or a studio’s desire to update a property or franchise so that it will be more receptive to a younger generation, or a filmmaker’s sincere attempt at revisioning a film that inspired them. Whether it is ultimately a financial or artistic decision, this practice has caused much controversy among filmgoers, casual and serious alike. One such film, at least among fans of the horror genre, is Halloween.
Originally released in 1978, this low-budget film not only inspired an entire horror sub-genre—the slasher film—it also inspired a big-budget remake that was released twenty-nine years later. Although the two share the same source material, both films are markedly different, especially in respect to their production values, their sense of aesthetics, and the underlying thematic elements.
In his third outing as director, John Carpenter (1948-) took his first stab at the horror film genre, Halloween, which cost the studio $320,000 when all was said and done. Despite the modest production values, the film grossed over forty-seven million dollars in the United States alone, and proved to be the highest grossing independent film made up to the time of its release.
Although technically competent, the film bears many earmarks of a low budget feature. Even though the action takes place in the fictitious town of Haddonfield, Illinois, the backdrop is obviously Southern California, as the occasional palm tree attests. Short on the cash with which to hire recognizable celebrities, the cast is instead comprised of B-film veterans and virtual unknowns. Cinematography that would rely on tracked dollies in more commercial efforts is instead the product of handheld, almost cinema veríte-style camerawork. Special effects are kept to a bare minimum. A modest film, the same couldn’t be said for the remake it inspired.
In what would be his third directorial outing as well, Rob Zombie née Robert Cummings (1965-) offered his distinct revisioning of Carpenter’s classic slasher film. It was made on a healthy Hollywood budget of twenty-million dollars, a far cry from the original, which was made on less than 1/60 of the remake’s budget. Zombie’s updating grossed around sixty-million dollars in the United States; although the profits were enough to garner the announcement of a forthcoming sequel, the profit margin wasn’t nearly as impressive as the original’s unprecedented success.
Inherently far more professional that Carpenter’s film, Zombie makes an honest attempt to retain the distinctly 70s feel of the original by mimicking it on a technical level. Again, the film was shot in South California, even though the action took place in the mid-west. Despite the money at Zombie’s disposal, he purposely chose to populate his cast with B-film veterans and virtual unknowns. (Among the seasoned actors were many names easily recognized by fans of 1970s drive-in fodder.) One of the most notable differences is the heavy use of special effects; with an effects budget that far surpasses the cost of its predecessor’s entire production, Zombie spared no effort in making the murders as gruesome and realistic as the ratings board would allow; whereas most of the violence in Carpernter’s version was concealed in shadow, Zombie kept the carnage well-lit and always within sight of the camera’s unflinching eye.
Production values aside, aesthetics are an important aspect of both films. The major factor behind the original film’s success is the presence of the director’s distinct style. Although the material would have proved pedestrian in the hands of a less talented filmmaker, Carpenter’s unique choreography creates a building momentum of suspense punctuated by abrupt shocks. Owing much to the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks, the pacing is terse, with tension generated from the use of nearly subliminal cues, both visual and musical. The score verges on minimalism, its 5/4 time signature entirely composed by a piano and a keyboard vying for dominance with only a handful of notes at their collective disposal.
The sequel, though, is a much different animal. Knowing that he was incapable of recreating the level of suspense found in the original, Zombie instead drew upon the strengths he displayed in his previous film The Devil’s Rejects (2005) by depicting the proceedings in a straightforward, brutally realistic manner. (As mentioned earlier, the liberal effects budget allowed for such excesses.) The remake relies far more on outright shocks than carefully orchestrated tension, which—intentions aside—seems to reverberate more with today’s jaded filmgoers.
As disturbing as the violence is in both films, what wormed their way under most viewers’ skin are the themes. In the original, antagonist Michael Myers is portrayed as a faceless, emotionless husk whose bloodlust is his sole purpose for existing. Michael, as a child, is seen only in a brief introduction, with most of the film’s running time devoted to his crimes as an adult. No motives are offered for his compulsions, no childhood trauma is evoked, his inexcusable actions beyond all rational explanation. He is the epitome of evil, as a society might have defined it. Carpenter endeavored to create a character with whom people could not identify, and in this sense he succeeded.
When Halloween was released in 1978, the United States was in the clutches of a growing phenomenon of serial murders. Citizens were more than ever being preyed upon by killers unknown, who were driven by their twisted psyches as opposed to personal gain. Psychopaths like the Zodiak Killer and Son of Sam even went so far as to gloat to authorities about their bloodied exploits whilst eluding capture. Although some would eventually be caught, others remained anonymous. In this way, Halloween reflected this mass anxiety: Michael Myers symbolized the country’s futile attempt to put a face to the name, and their fears of a bogeyman that preyed upon the unwary and unsuspecting.
Thirty years later, serial killers are no longer beyond our general scope of understanding. With the growing art and science of criminal profiling, we have since put faces to many of the once unthinkable crimes. These killers are more often than not the product of childhood abuse, their actions the direct result of extreme conditioning.
In Zombie’s 2007 remake, Michael Myers is no longer a motiveless killer, and the mask he wears no longer reflects the utter lack of identity, but symbolizes the harsh cruelty of a life gone horribly wrong. Half of the film is devoted to the years preceding the inevitable All Hallow’s Eve massacre. We see the dysfunctional family that spawned Michael, and the progressive deterioration of personality while he is institutionalized for the murders he committed during his youth. As we have learned about most serial killers in the last three decades, he is no longer an enigmatic aberration, but a victim whose bloodlust is fueled by personal demons and an untethered id. Although Zombie’s end result of the character seems much like Carpenter’s, we are given the chance to identify with Michael Myers early on, which in some ways makes his character even more frightening.
In closing, the original Halloween and its 2007 remake are disparate visions of the same source material by two very unique, talented voices. Despite a few similarities in tone, the differences are marked, especially when it comes to the films’ sense of aesthetics and the thematic elements they wish to convey. Both are the products of their times, and so they appeal to two very different generations of filmgoers. As such, the controversy will continue between the two camps of fans that have supported these efforts.
Originally released in 1978, this low-budget film not only inspired an entire horror sub-genre—the slasher film—it also inspired a big-budget remake that was released twenty-nine years later. Although the two share the same source material, both films are markedly different, especially in respect to their production values, their sense of aesthetics, and the underlying thematic elements.
In his third outing as director, John Carpenter (1948-) took his first stab at the horror film genre, Halloween, which cost the studio $320,000 when all was said and done. Despite the modest production values, the film grossed over forty-seven million dollars in the United States alone, and proved to be the highest grossing independent film made up to the time of its release.
Although technically competent, the film bears many earmarks of a low budget feature. Even though the action takes place in the fictitious town of Haddonfield, Illinois, the backdrop is obviously Southern California, as the occasional palm tree attests. Short on the cash with which to hire recognizable celebrities, the cast is instead comprised of B-film veterans and virtual unknowns. Cinematography that would rely on tracked dollies in more commercial efforts is instead the product of handheld, almost cinema veríte-style camerawork. Special effects are kept to a bare minimum. A modest film, the same couldn’t be said for the remake it inspired.
In what would be his third directorial outing as well, Rob Zombie née Robert Cummings (1965-) offered his distinct revisioning of Carpenter’s classic slasher film. It was made on a healthy Hollywood budget of twenty-million dollars, a far cry from the original, which was made on less than 1/60 of the remake’s budget. Zombie’s updating grossed around sixty-million dollars in the United States; although the profits were enough to garner the announcement of a forthcoming sequel, the profit margin wasn’t nearly as impressive as the original’s unprecedented success.
Inherently far more professional that Carpenter’s film, Zombie makes an honest attempt to retain the distinctly 70s feel of the original by mimicking it on a technical level. Again, the film was shot in South California, even though the action took place in the mid-west. Despite the money at Zombie’s disposal, he purposely chose to populate his cast with B-film veterans and virtual unknowns. (Among the seasoned actors were many names easily recognized by fans of 1970s drive-in fodder.) One of the most notable differences is the heavy use of special effects; with an effects budget that far surpasses the cost of its predecessor’s entire production, Zombie spared no effort in making the murders as gruesome and realistic as the ratings board would allow; whereas most of the violence in Carpernter’s version was concealed in shadow, Zombie kept the carnage well-lit and always within sight of the camera’s unflinching eye.
Production values aside, aesthetics are an important aspect of both films. The major factor behind the original film’s success is the presence of the director’s distinct style. Although the material would have proved pedestrian in the hands of a less talented filmmaker, Carpenter’s unique choreography creates a building momentum of suspense punctuated by abrupt shocks. Owing much to the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks, the pacing is terse, with tension generated from the use of nearly subliminal cues, both visual and musical. The score verges on minimalism, its 5/4 time signature entirely composed by a piano and a keyboard vying for dominance with only a handful of notes at their collective disposal.
The sequel, though, is a much different animal. Knowing that he was incapable of recreating the level of suspense found in the original, Zombie instead drew upon the strengths he displayed in his previous film The Devil’s Rejects (2005) by depicting the proceedings in a straightforward, brutally realistic manner. (As mentioned earlier, the liberal effects budget allowed for such excesses.) The remake relies far more on outright shocks than carefully orchestrated tension, which—intentions aside—seems to reverberate more with today’s jaded filmgoers.
As disturbing as the violence is in both films, what wormed their way under most viewers’ skin are the themes. In the original, antagonist Michael Myers is portrayed as a faceless, emotionless husk whose bloodlust is his sole purpose for existing. Michael, as a child, is seen only in a brief introduction, with most of the film’s running time devoted to his crimes as an adult. No motives are offered for his compulsions, no childhood trauma is evoked, his inexcusable actions beyond all rational explanation. He is the epitome of evil, as a society might have defined it. Carpenter endeavored to create a character with whom people could not identify, and in this sense he succeeded.
When Halloween was released in 1978, the United States was in the clutches of a growing phenomenon of serial murders. Citizens were more than ever being preyed upon by killers unknown, who were driven by their twisted psyches as opposed to personal gain. Psychopaths like the Zodiak Killer and Son of Sam even went so far as to gloat to authorities about their bloodied exploits whilst eluding capture. Although some would eventually be caught, others remained anonymous. In this way, Halloween reflected this mass anxiety: Michael Myers symbolized the country’s futile attempt to put a face to the name, and their fears of a bogeyman that preyed upon the unwary and unsuspecting.
Thirty years later, serial killers are no longer beyond our general scope of understanding. With the growing art and science of criminal profiling, we have since put faces to many of the once unthinkable crimes. These killers are more often than not the product of childhood abuse, their actions the direct result of extreme conditioning.
In Zombie’s 2007 remake, Michael Myers is no longer a motiveless killer, and the mask he wears no longer reflects the utter lack of identity, but symbolizes the harsh cruelty of a life gone horribly wrong. Half of the film is devoted to the years preceding the inevitable All Hallow’s Eve massacre. We see the dysfunctional family that spawned Michael, and the progressive deterioration of personality while he is institutionalized for the murders he committed during his youth. As we have learned about most serial killers in the last three decades, he is no longer an enigmatic aberration, but a victim whose bloodlust is fueled by personal demons and an untethered id. Although Zombie’s end result of the character seems much like Carpenter’s, we are given the chance to identify with Michael Myers early on, which in some ways makes his character even more frightening.
In closing, the original Halloween and its 2007 remake are disparate visions of the same source material by two very unique, talented voices. Despite a few similarities in tone, the differences are marked, especially when it comes to the films’ sense of aesthetics and the thematic elements they wish to convey. Both are the products of their times, and so they appeal to two very different generations of filmgoers. As such, the controversy will continue between the two camps of fans that have supported these efforts.
Preface to
Snuff Films: The Final Cut
Over the years, I have written a great many articles about snuff films, have been interviewed on the subject, and have been consulted on this pervasive myth for several television documentaries. So, being something of a recognized “authority” on the subject, composing a college paper defining snuff films would be a cinch, a pushover, a walk in the park, and as easy as apple pie. Right? To some extent, I made this assumption as well, but…
With this paper, I faced several challenges: Firstly, to distill the information so the pertinent information could fit into the allotted space; and, secondly, to write it to an audience who was unfamiliar with the concept or term, as my audience in the past was already well-versed in the basics. The fact that my advisor and most of my peers were unacquainted with the snuff film phenomenon was ultimately invaluable, as it helped me to (eventually) define it clearly and objectively whilst avoiding the dangerous assumption that the readers were cinephiles. (I faced this problem with my first essay, but it became far more apparent with this piece.) Because of numerous misconceptions, I also found myself succinctly defining several other cinematic subgenres, including “shockumentaries” and splatter films, which were also not part of the average person’s lexicon.
Of my three MWAs in English 098, this was the one that would see the most rewrites, but in the long run, it was worth it.
With this paper, I faced several challenges: Firstly, to distill the information so the pertinent information could fit into the allotted space; and, secondly, to write it to an audience who was unfamiliar with the concept or term, as my audience in the past was already well-versed in the basics. The fact that my advisor and most of my peers were unacquainted with the snuff film phenomenon was ultimately invaluable, as it helped me to (eventually) define it clearly and objectively whilst avoiding the dangerous assumption that the readers were cinephiles. (I faced this problem with my first essay, but it became far more apparent with this piece.) Because of numerous misconceptions, I also found myself succinctly defining several other cinematic subgenres, including “shockumentaries” and splatter films, which were also not part of the average person’s lexicon.
Of my three MWAs in English 098, this was the one that would see the most rewrites, but in the long run, it was worth it.
Snuff Films: The Final Cut
“The Film That Could Only Be Made in South America… Where Life Is Cheap!” touts the theatrical adline to Snuff, a low-budget production that continues to create controversy thirty-three years after its initial release. Despite the film’s relative obscurity, Snuff--the product of an ingenious marketing ploy by an opportunistic film producer--has secured itself a place in cinematic history, as well as contributing an incendiary urban legend to America’s rich folklore. Although the subject has only occasionally made the news in recent years, “snuff films” became a scapegoat for the sins of a narcissistic, jaded society during the 1970s and 1980s, the presumed culmination of our being exposed to excessive violence in the media and the arts.
So what is a snuff film? The Random House Dictionary, in a relatively new entry, defines a snuff movie as “a pornographic film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act.” It also states in a secondary definition that “snuff films” are synonymous with “splatter films,” an egregious error in and of itself. The American Heritage Dictionary offers a similarly erroneous definition, sans the splatter film connection. For reasons of clarity and propriety, a proper definition of snuff should instead be based on the film that single-handedly popularized the concept and introduced it into the public lexicon:
Snuff film (noun) Any film that depicts the premeditated onscreen death of one or more of its actors without their knowledge or consent, which is produced specifically for the sole intention of profiting from its distribution.
Although the film in question may be pornographic, this has never been part of the essential criteria as some references cite, as the film which defines snuff is not sexually explicit. Furthermore, profit is the ultimate objective. An exorbitant price tag compensates for the extremely limited distribution through black market channels, willingly paid for by affluent clients with jaded interests. Finally, “splatter films” are legitimate, perfectly legal productions that rely on staged bloodletting for scenes of gratuitous violence, leaving no room for association with snuff, which eschews the use of special effects by actually sacrificing its cast. (Most modern horror films contain a certain amount of gratuity, so the cinematic use of the term “splatter” has become virtually obsolete except in a historical context.)
There are other types of cinema that are often associated--or even conflated--with snuff films, despite the fact that they fall short of the necessary criteria. The most popular of these is known as the “shockumentary,” a brand of sensational, exploitive pseudo-documentary that often collects “found” footage of death and dismemberment from other sources, including newsreels or home video recordings that unintentionally capture such shocking images. (Often, these tasteless productions—such as the infamous Faces of Death series--pad out these scraps of genuine carnage with special effects-laden “fakes” and cruel scenes of real-life animal butchery.) Although this type of “entertainment” has played grindhouses since the 1930s, they became prominent fixtures at drive-ins throughout the 1960s and 1970s thanks to an Italian production released worldwide as Mondo Cane [A Dog’s Life] (1962). (Because of this film’s box-office success, and the slough of similarly titled films in its wake, shockumentaries are also referred to as “mondo” films.) Since shockumentaries occasionally depict real scenes of death—even though they weren’t specifically produced for the film and with criminal intent—their popularity seems to give snuff films validity by showing that there very well could be a demand for such sadistic fare, however limited.
Another misconception is that video recordings made by serial killers for the sole purpose of documenting their disturbing deeds qualify as snuff. On the contrary, these films—known as “trophy” films, with which the psychopathic personality can use to relive the moments of their sadistic crimes—are never made with a financial gain in mind, so they are considered by criminologists a separate animal altogether.
Most people are aghast when they first learn about snuff films, and may ask, “How could somebody do such a thing? What is being done to bring to justice those individuals responsible these black market atrocities?” Truth be told, very little is being done about them, simply because there is no evidence that they even exist. Not to say that such a thing as a snuff film isn’t possible. Still, when one takes into account the complicated logistics of creating and distributing such a product, along with the lack of verifiable proof that any such film has ever been produced and sold, snuff films—as defined above—are improbable. So why has so much fuss been made about snuff films, if their very existence has never been confirmed? Historians can lay the blame entirely at the feet of the aforementioned film Snuff.
In 1972, film producer Allan Shackleton bought the world distribution rights to a low budget film called The Slaughter (1971). Made by sexploitation filmmakers Michael and Roberta Findlay, this thinly veiled take on the Manson family’s well-publicized killing spree had a limited theatrical release before being shelved due to poor box-office returns. Shackleton desperately needed a creative approach with which to market the film successfully, so he decided that the best publicity he could muster was through controversy.
In 1975, Shackleton put together a guerilla cast and crew with which to shoot a new five-minute finale. This new footage depicted what is supposed to be one of the original actresses in a candid moment following the final take. After she makes time with the purported director of the film, the remaining crew members descend upon her with cameras rolling, capturing her alleged final moments. The viewer is forced to watch as the demented filmmaker tortures and eventually eviscerates the unwary thespian, conveniently completing his unholy mission only seconds before the camera runs out of film stock. Anyone who has seen this footage remains unconvinced by the dubious proceedings: There is no continuity whatsoever between the two films, the performances are poor, and the dimestore special effects even worse. But this didn’t deter Shackleton, as the whole point was to get ticket buyers into the theatre; whatever happened after that was immaterial. Even the opportunistic director, though, didn’t realize the impact his deception would have on this country… and this is where snuff went from being an obscure concept to a nationwide panic and an indefatigable urban legend.
Bearing a new title alongside ambiguous claims that it was “The Picture They Said Could Never Be Shown,” press releases and advertisements implied that, unlike other horror films, the carnage caught on camera was not faked. Shackleton then proceeded to distribute bogus newspaper clippings detailing the efforts of one “Vincent Sheehan,” the head of a fictional organization called Citizens for Decency, and his relentless crusade against the film in question. Not surprisingly, genuine groups bought into the prefabricated hysteria, and before long every theatre showing the film was festooned with picket lines protesting the public display of what they assumed to be a real-life atrocity. Almost overnight, this threadbare production made national headlines, whilst establishing the groundwork for a myth that still persists to this very day.
Within a few months of its controversial release, authorities looked into the possible illegality of the film, but found the content so laughable as to not warrant any further investigation. Surprisingly, their official statements exposing the rumors to be false did not deter the public outcry, as word of mouth continued, perpetuated by individuals who had never even seen the film, or questioned its authenticity. Even after the film had long worn out its welcome, the furor surrounding the existence of snuff cinema endured. This cinematic bogeyman has inspired innumerable films and books, and has become so entrenched in America’s psyche that even today concerned citizens cite snuff as being a billion-dollar industry lurking just beneath the radar of the law. Despite countless, concerted efforts to unearth a bona fide snuff film, authorities have resigned this cinematic phenomenon—as defined by the film that inspired the concept--to the domain of urban legends.
So what is a snuff film? The Random House Dictionary, in a relatively new entry, defines a snuff movie as “a pornographic film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act.” It also states in a secondary definition that “snuff films” are synonymous with “splatter films,” an egregious error in and of itself. The American Heritage Dictionary offers a similarly erroneous definition, sans the splatter film connection. For reasons of clarity and propriety, a proper definition of snuff should instead be based on the film that single-handedly popularized the concept and introduced it into the public lexicon:
Snuff film (noun) Any film that depicts the premeditated onscreen death of one or more of its actors without their knowledge or consent, which is produced specifically for the sole intention of profiting from its distribution.
Although the film in question may be pornographic, this has never been part of the essential criteria as some references cite, as the film which defines snuff is not sexually explicit. Furthermore, profit is the ultimate objective. An exorbitant price tag compensates for the extremely limited distribution through black market channels, willingly paid for by affluent clients with jaded interests. Finally, “splatter films” are legitimate, perfectly legal productions that rely on staged bloodletting for scenes of gratuitous violence, leaving no room for association with snuff, which eschews the use of special effects by actually sacrificing its cast. (Most modern horror films contain a certain amount of gratuity, so the cinematic use of the term “splatter” has become virtually obsolete except in a historical context.)
There are other types of cinema that are often associated--or even conflated--with snuff films, despite the fact that they fall short of the necessary criteria. The most popular of these is known as the “shockumentary,” a brand of sensational, exploitive pseudo-documentary that often collects “found” footage of death and dismemberment from other sources, including newsreels or home video recordings that unintentionally capture such shocking images. (Often, these tasteless productions—such as the infamous Faces of Death series--pad out these scraps of genuine carnage with special effects-laden “fakes” and cruel scenes of real-life animal butchery.) Although this type of “entertainment” has played grindhouses since the 1930s, they became prominent fixtures at drive-ins throughout the 1960s and 1970s thanks to an Italian production released worldwide as Mondo Cane [A Dog’s Life] (1962). (Because of this film’s box-office success, and the slough of similarly titled films in its wake, shockumentaries are also referred to as “mondo” films.) Since shockumentaries occasionally depict real scenes of death—even though they weren’t specifically produced for the film and with criminal intent—their popularity seems to give snuff films validity by showing that there very well could be a demand for such sadistic fare, however limited.
Another misconception is that video recordings made by serial killers for the sole purpose of documenting their disturbing deeds qualify as snuff. On the contrary, these films—known as “trophy” films, with which the psychopathic personality can use to relive the moments of their sadistic crimes—are never made with a financial gain in mind, so they are considered by criminologists a separate animal altogether.
Most people are aghast when they first learn about snuff films, and may ask, “How could somebody do such a thing? What is being done to bring to justice those individuals responsible these black market atrocities?” Truth be told, very little is being done about them, simply because there is no evidence that they even exist. Not to say that such a thing as a snuff film isn’t possible. Still, when one takes into account the complicated logistics of creating and distributing such a product, along with the lack of verifiable proof that any such film has ever been produced and sold, snuff films—as defined above—are improbable. So why has so much fuss been made about snuff films, if their very existence has never been confirmed? Historians can lay the blame entirely at the feet of the aforementioned film Snuff.
In 1972, film producer Allan Shackleton bought the world distribution rights to a low budget film called The Slaughter (1971). Made by sexploitation filmmakers Michael and Roberta Findlay, this thinly veiled take on the Manson family’s well-publicized killing spree had a limited theatrical release before being shelved due to poor box-office returns. Shackleton desperately needed a creative approach with which to market the film successfully, so he decided that the best publicity he could muster was through controversy.
In 1975, Shackleton put together a guerilla cast and crew with which to shoot a new five-minute finale. This new footage depicted what is supposed to be one of the original actresses in a candid moment following the final take. After she makes time with the purported director of the film, the remaining crew members descend upon her with cameras rolling, capturing her alleged final moments. The viewer is forced to watch as the demented filmmaker tortures and eventually eviscerates the unwary thespian, conveniently completing his unholy mission only seconds before the camera runs out of film stock. Anyone who has seen this footage remains unconvinced by the dubious proceedings: There is no continuity whatsoever between the two films, the performances are poor, and the dimestore special effects even worse. But this didn’t deter Shackleton, as the whole point was to get ticket buyers into the theatre; whatever happened after that was immaterial. Even the opportunistic director, though, didn’t realize the impact his deception would have on this country… and this is where snuff went from being an obscure concept to a nationwide panic and an indefatigable urban legend.
Bearing a new title alongside ambiguous claims that it was “The Picture They Said Could Never Be Shown,” press releases and advertisements implied that, unlike other horror films, the carnage caught on camera was not faked. Shackleton then proceeded to distribute bogus newspaper clippings detailing the efforts of one “Vincent Sheehan,” the head of a fictional organization called Citizens for Decency, and his relentless crusade against the film in question. Not surprisingly, genuine groups bought into the prefabricated hysteria, and before long every theatre showing the film was festooned with picket lines protesting the public display of what they assumed to be a real-life atrocity. Almost overnight, this threadbare production made national headlines, whilst establishing the groundwork for a myth that still persists to this very day.
Within a few months of its controversial release, authorities looked into the possible illegality of the film, but found the content so laughable as to not warrant any further investigation. Surprisingly, their official statements exposing the rumors to be false did not deter the public outcry, as word of mouth continued, perpetuated by individuals who had never even seen the film, or questioned its authenticity. Even after the film had long worn out its welcome, the furor surrounding the existence of snuff cinema endured. This cinematic bogeyman has inspired innumerable films and books, and has become so entrenched in America’s psyche that even today concerned citizens cite snuff as being a billion-dollar industry lurking just beneath the radar of the law. Despite countless, concerted efforts to unearth a bona fide snuff film, authorities have resigned this cinematic phenomenon—as defined by the film that inspired the concept--to the domain of urban legends.
Preface to
The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the
Twentieth Century and Beyond
This—the last of my Major Writing Assignments for English 098—was the most daunting of the three projects. Researching the piece was not difficult, but it was extremely time consuming nonetheless, and the collection of citations became an endeavor unto itself. Despite the fact that I would have liked more time (and space) to discuss the issues of Satanic ritual abuse and religious intolerance, I am very pleased with the end product. I feel I argued my point well, and offered sufficient reasons to support my thesis statement. I presented strong quotes from an array of respected authorities, many of whom aren’t professed Satanists, thus avoiding any accusations of using only biased sources. The overall writing of this piece is stronger than the previous two, as I took into careful consideration the feedback I received about certain stylistic tendencies I may at times display. (The abundance of run-on sentences was amongst the biggest gripes made by both my advisor and my peers, so I hope that this last essay was far less migraine-inducing than my previous assignments.) One of my main concerns when writing this piece was that it not be reiterative of my previous essay, “Snuff: The Final Cut.” Both dealt with debunking an urban legend, so it would have been easy (and tempting) to simply follow the same formula. Luckily, I feel I was successful in restructuring it in a way so readers wouldn’t be hampered too terribly much by feelings of déjà vu.
I chose the subject “The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the Twentieth Century and Beyond” in order to further discredit the myths involving Satanic cults and their supposed involvement in abuse and murder in the last forty-odd years. In addition, I wanted to clarify what Satanism is and how its ideologies contradict the unfounded rumors that have been constantly leveled against it by the religious right. Having been a card-carrying member and an active representative of the Church of Satan for about ten years now, I have been exposed to no shortage of prejudice and bigotry when I have disclosed my philosophical beliefs in public. Since I knew my audience probably knew very little if anything about Satanism, I felt it would be a perfect opportunity to shed some light on the subject. Furthermore, I felt it would interest most readers because of its sensationalistic aspects, even if they did not agree with the assessment I made.
I chose the subject “The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the Twentieth Century and Beyond” in order to further discredit the myths involving Satanic cults and their supposed involvement in abuse and murder in the last forty-odd years. In addition, I wanted to clarify what Satanism is and how its ideologies contradict the unfounded rumors that have been constantly leveled against it by the religious right. Having been a card-carrying member and an active representative of the Church of Satan for about ten years now, I have been exposed to no shortage of prejudice and bigotry when I have disclosed my philosophical beliefs in public. Since I knew my audience probably knew very little if anything about Satanism, I felt it would be a perfect opportunity to shed some light on the subject. Furthermore, I felt it would interest most readers because of its sensationalistic aspects, even if they did not agree with the assessment I made.
The Satanic Conspiracy: Witch Hunting in the
Twentieth Century and Beyond
Most of us have heard the rumors at some point in our lives: Reports of clandestine Satanic cults engaging in blood rituals and cannibalistic orgies, targeting defenseless animals and even children in order to gain favor with the devil himself. In the 1980s, these bogeymen were everywhere, lurking in the dead of night and brought to light by the recovered memories of alleged survivors. “SRA” (Satanic Ritual Abuse) became both a popular catchword and a nationwide concern; religious activists, psychotherapists, law enforcement officials, the media and concerned citizens alike were all caught up in the hysteria. And although the fires have waned in the last few decades, the same stories still circulate. But the question remains: Is there a Satanic conspiracy, a vast underground network of devil cultists corrupting and killing our youth? If we mull over what evidence there is to support such a theory, the answer is “not likely.”
To contextualize the subject properly, we first need to examine the time period that bred concerns of Satanic Ritual Abuse. With the close of the 1970s, Americans heralded in a new decade fraught with anxiety: The Vietnam War, Kent State, Watergate, Love Canal, the Jonestown Massacre, Three-Mile Island and the Iran Hostage Situation punctuated the dramatic rise in unemployment numbers, crime rates, and gas prices. No one knew what the 1980s would bring us, but many were expecting the worst, and little or nothing would surprise them.
The first year of the new decade saw the publication of a bestselling “auto-biography” which introduced the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse. The book, Michelle Remembers, was supposedly a first-person account written by Michelle Smith (née Proby) and co-authored by her psychologist husband Dr. Lawrence Pazder. In it, the author recounted in explicit detail horrific tales of being ritually abused as a young child by Church of Satan members, her own mother included, in Vancouver, B.C. These serious allegations were the result of “recovered” memories, supposedly buried for over twenty years, and brought out by her soon-to-be husband through hypnosis.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Smith, nobody could corroborate her incredible claims, including family members, neighbors, and others with whom she grew up. Most of the thousand-odd cultists who were supposedly involved in the abuse, she claimed, were marked by a missing middle finger on their left hand, yet not one person could be found fitting this description. Furthermore, Nicholas P. Spanos, professor of psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has stated that--concerning Smith’s recollections--"skepticism appears warranted by the fact that some of these ‘memories’ involve Michelle's encounters with supernatural beings." (Spanos, 269)
Shortly after Michelle Remembers saw print, the authors were threatened with a lawsuit filed by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, for their libelous assertions against his legal and very public organization. (The Church was not founded until eleven years after the events allegedly took place, a fact which had apparently eluded Michelle and her husband.) The publisher quickly removed all references to the Church of Satan in subsequent editions of the book, and the lawsuit was dropped. (de Young, 24)
Despite the fact that Michelle Remembers was soon discredited on all fronts, its impressive sales and promotion prompted a flurry of similar cases cited by the media, most of which adhered to the formula whilst taking the bizarre claims of depravation to new lows. Patients across the country were urged by their therapists or social workers to go public with their own stories, contributing to the escalating media frenzy. Satanic ritual abuse had become a nationwide phenomenon.
Tensions mounted throughout the 1980s, and it was not long before reports of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse were being filed in courts across the country. Accusations that began in 1983 eventually led to the highly-publicized McMartin Preschool Trial in 1987, which helped to perpetuate the fears that played upon every parent’s worst nightmare. One of the most costly criminal trials of its time, all charges were dropped and the case was officially closed in 1990 due to insufficient evidence. (Norton)
New books chronicling such alleged atrocities flew off the shelves, bearing such sensational titles as Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse, Don’t Make Me Go Back, Mommy, Lessons in Evil, Lessons from the Light, Released from Bondage, Satan’s Children, Satan’s Underground and Suffer the Child. These are only a few examples of the books devoted to exposing SRA published in the wake of Michelle Remembers, but all of them share one thing in common: No evidence has been found to support any of the cases reported therein. In the midst of this bizarre epidemic, even some Christians questioned the validity of these outrageous claims. In an issue of the Christian Research Journal, Bob and Gretchen Passaintino wrote, “When dozens of stories turned into hundreds and then thousands of stories, none of which produced a single piece of corroborative evidence, even some former believers became healthy skeptics.” (Passaintino, 20)
Many people assumed that the sheer number of cases alone was enough to lend the extraordinary claims credibility, no matter how outrageous or unthinkable the acts they detailed were. Editor Tamara Roleff writes:
…some therapists, law enforcement, and judicial officials theorized that an extremely organized secret network of Satanists was responsible for the violence. They estimated that Satanists were performing—and getting away with—as many as 50,000 ritual murders every year. Furthermore, they claimed, leaders of the conspiracy were noted members of the community—government and law enforcement officials, lawyers, and doctors. Because of their importance in the community, these leaders were able to keep their Satanic activities secret. (Roleff, 7)
Alleged SRA survivor Gordon Magill laments that “Satanic ritual abuse is a serious problem in the United States; however, the victims’ claims of SRA are dismissed by many as hoaxes of a form of mass hysteria. Those who advocate the ‘mass hysteria’ theory refuse to accept firsthand accounts of abuse by the children or adults who were victimized because they claim their memories are unreliable.” He then insists that “Satanic ritual abuse has many similarities to organized crime and it must be investigated in much the same way.” (Magill, 19)
A behavioral scientist at Quantico since 1981, Kenneth Lanning—regarded as an expert in cult-related criminal activity due to his work for the FBI—has since been an advisor on more than 300 investigations involving suspected cases of SRA. In a 1991 interview, he admitted that he was inclined to believe the claims early on, but “then the cases began piling up. There were lots of reports of cults, but no bodies…airplanes with heat-seeking equipment sought out mass graves on the theory that decomposing bodies would give off heat. No bodies were found. (He) stopped believing.” (Johnson, A1)
After equating SRA with alleged alien abduction accounts, Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist and bestselling author Carl Sagan examines the specifics of the SRA epidemic in his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Sagan states:
In a survey of 2,700 members of the American Psychological Association, 12 percent replied that they had treated cases of Satanic ritual abuse (while 30 percent reported cases of abuse in the name of religion). Something like 10,000 cases are reported annually in the United States in recent years. A significant number of those touting the peril of rampant Satanism in America, including law enforcement officers who organize seminars on the subject, turn out to be Christian fundamentalists; their sects explicitly require a literal devil to be meddling in everyday human life. (Sagan, 159)
The witch hunt continues to this very day, as does the argument surrounding the existence of Satanic ritual abuse. Through nothing more than “association,” The Church of Satan and its members have been the primary scapegoats throughout the struggle. The first official group to claim Satanism as a viable alternative to orthodox religions, The Church of Satan is the most widespread and widely recognized organization of its type. (Although this organization does not publicly release membership information, an official US Army pamphlet published in 1978, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains, estimated that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to twenty thousand official Church of Satan members at that time.) (Roleff, 6)
Due to a myriad of preconceived notions popularized and fostered by prevailing religious beliefs, Satanism as advocated by the Church bears little if no resemblance to the myths that have been perpetuated over the last millennium. Paramount is the claims of ritual abuse and bloodletting that are allegedly an integral part of Satanic practice. In two of the eleven rules on which Satanic philosophy was founded, Anton LaVey specifically states that Satanists should under no circumstances harm children, and should not kill animals except as a necessary food source, or in self-defense. “Unlike many religions and philosophies, Satanism respects and exalts life. Children and animals are the purest expressions of that life force, and as such are held sacred and precious in the eyes of the Satanist.” (LaVey, At Issue, 24) Such tenets are a far cry from the spurious claims of sadistic devil cultists who find favor with a prince of darkness through blood rituals.
Contrary to popular belief, Satanists do not worship the devil, or any other deity; “Satan” is nothing more than a symbol of the carnal nature of humanity. In addition to being stalwart atheists, Satanists consider themselves law abiding citizens; on the rare occasion a member is discovered and proven to be involved in criminal activity, their membership is immediately revoked and all affiliation withdrawn. All applicants are interviewed and carefully screened to minimize such happenstances by ensuring that potential member first have a full grasp of the tenets and abide by them. Drugs are discouraged because they hinder the individual’s ability to rationalize clearly. The Church of Satan is usually referred to as a “cult” by its detractors, even though the organization does not fit any of the various definitions usually offered within academic circles. Members are never “recruited;” all applicants come to the Church of their own volition, and can conveniently cancel their membership and affiliation at any time. Satanism encourages education and free thought, which is the antithesis of the cult mentality. “Magic” is performed by some Satanists, but these are nothing more than personalized rituals—often psychodrama—used as form of psychological catharsis that cannot be met by other means of creative self-expression. Satanism is a philosophy that bears more resemblance to secular humanism than it does any “religion.” In short, Satanists are iconoclasts whom share a base set of values that significantly differentiates them from the majority of people who hold a more orthodox view of the world.
So why have rumors of Satanic Ritual Abuse persisted, even to this day? Why have Satanists been singled out with such maliciously vilifying stereotypes, even when everything points to the contrary? Anton LaVey sums up the contention of a Satanic conspiracy best with the last of The Nine Satanic Statements: “Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!” (LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 25)
Works Cited
Smith, Michelle, & Pazder, Lawrence. Michelle Remembers. New York: Congdon & Lattes, 1980.
Spanos, Nicholas P. “Multiple Identities & False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective.” Psychological Bulletin 116.1 (July 1994): 143.
de Young, Mary. The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Company, 2004.
Norton, Richard A. (2008). “McMartin Preschool Trial.” Wikipedia. 2008. 2 Mar. 2009.
Passaintino, Bob, and Passaintino, Gretchen. “The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse.” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1992): 20.
Roleff, Tamara L. “Introduction.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Magill, Gordan A. “Satanic Ritual Abuse Is a Problem.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Johnson, John, and Padilla, Steve. “Satanism: Skeptics Abound.” Los Angeles Times. 23 Apr. 1991: A1. Los Angeles Times. ProQuest. Everett Community Coll. LMC, WA. 3 Mar. 2009.
Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
LaVey, Anton S. “The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.” 1967. 2 Mar. 2009..
LaVey, Anton S. “Church of Satan’s Advice to Youth.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
LaVey, Anton S. The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books, 1969.
To contextualize the subject properly, we first need to examine the time period that bred concerns of Satanic Ritual Abuse. With the close of the 1970s, Americans heralded in a new decade fraught with anxiety: The Vietnam War, Kent State, Watergate, Love Canal, the Jonestown Massacre, Three-Mile Island and the Iran Hostage Situation punctuated the dramatic rise in unemployment numbers, crime rates, and gas prices. No one knew what the 1980s would bring us, but many were expecting the worst, and little or nothing would surprise them.
The first year of the new decade saw the publication of a bestselling “auto-biography” which introduced the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse. The book, Michelle Remembers, was supposedly a first-person account written by Michelle Smith (née Proby) and co-authored by her psychologist husband Dr. Lawrence Pazder. In it, the author recounted in explicit detail horrific tales of being ritually abused as a young child by Church of Satan members, her own mother included, in Vancouver, B.C. These serious allegations were the result of “recovered” memories, supposedly buried for over twenty years, and brought out by her soon-to-be husband through hypnosis.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Smith, nobody could corroborate her incredible claims, including family members, neighbors, and others with whom she grew up. Most of the thousand-odd cultists who were supposedly involved in the abuse, she claimed, were marked by a missing middle finger on their left hand, yet not one person could be found fitting this description. Furthermore, Nicholas P. Spanos, professor of psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has stated that--concerning Smith’s recollections--"skepticism appears warranted by the fact that some of these ‘memories’ involve Michelle's encounters with supernatural beings." (Spanos, 269)
Shortly after Michelle Remembers saw print, the authors were threatened with a lawsuit filed by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, for their libelous assertions against his legal and very public organization. (The Church was not founded until eleven years after the events allegedly took place, a fact which had apparently eluded Michelle and her husband.) The publisher quickly removed all references to the Church of Satan in subsequent editions of the book, and the lawsuit was dropped. (de Young, 24)
Despite the fact that Michelle Remembers was soon discredited on all fronts, its impressive sales and promotion prompted a flurry of similar cases cited by the media, most of which adhered to the formula whilst taking the bizarre claims of depravation to new lows. Patients across the country were urged by their therapists or social workers to go public with their own stories, contributing to the escalating media frenzy. Satanic ritual abuse had become a nationwide phenomenon.
Tensions mounted throughout the 1980s, and it was not long before reports of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse were being filed in courts across the country. Accusations that began in 1983 eventually led to the highly-publicized McMartin Preschool Trial in 1987, which helped to perpetuate the fears that played upon every parent’s worst nightmare. One of the most costly criminal trials of its time, all charges were dropped and the case was officially closed in 1990 due to insufficient evidence. (Norton)
New books chronicling such alleged atrocities flew off the shelves, bearing such sensational titles as Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse, Don’t Make Me Go Back, Mommy, Lessons in Evil, Lessons from the Light, Released from Bondage, Satan’s Children, Satan’s Underground and Suffer the Child. These are only a few examples of the books devoted to exposing SRA published in the wake of Michelle Remembers, but all of them share one thing in common: No evidence has been found to support any of the cases reported therein. In the midst of this bizarre epidemic, even some Christians questioned the validity of these outrageous claims. In an issue of the Christian Research Journal, Bob and Gretchen Passaintino wrote, “When dozens of stories turned into hundreds and then thousands of stories, none of which produced a single piece of corroborative evidence, even some former believers became healthy skeptics.” (Passaintino, 20)
Many people assumed that the sheer number of cases alone was enough to lend the extraordinary claims credibility, no matter how outrageous or unthinkable the acts they detailed were. Editor Tamara Roleff writes:
…some therapists, law enforcement, and judicial officials theorized that an extremely organized secret network of Satanists was responsible for the violence. They estimated that Satanists were performing—and getting away with—as many as 50,000 ritual murders every year. Furthermore, they claimed, leaders of the conspiracy were noted members of the community—government and law enforcement officials, lawyers, and doctors. Because of their importance in the community, these leaders were able to keep their Satanic activities secret. (Roleff, 7)
Alleged SRA survivor Gordon Magill laments that “Satanic ritual abuse is a serious problem in the United States; however, the victims’ claims of SRA are dismissed by many as hoaxes of a form of mass hysteria. Those who advocate the ‘mass hysteria’ theory refuse to accept firsthand accounts of abuse by the children or adults who were victimized because they claim their memories are unreliable.” He then insists that “Satanic ritual abuse has many similarities to organized crime and it must be investigated in much the same way.” (Magill, 19)
A behavioral scientist at Quantico since 1981, Kenneth Lanning—regarded as an expert in cult-related criminal activity due to his work for the FBI—has since been an advisor on more than 300 investigations involving suspected cases of SRA. In a 1991 interview, he admitted that he was inclined to believe the claims early on, but “then the cases began piling up. There were lots of reports of cults, but no bodies…airplanes with heat-seeking equipment sought out mass graves on the theory that decomposing bodies would give off heat. No bodies were found. (He) stopped believing.” (Johnson, A1)
After equating SRA with alleged alien abduction accounts, Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist and bestselling author Carl Sagan examines the specifics of the SRA epidemic in his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Sagan states:
In a survey of 2,700 members of the American Psychological Association, 12 percent replied that they had treated cases of Satanic ritual abuse (while 30 percent reported cases of abuse in the name of religion). Something like 10,000 cases are reported annually in the United States in recent years. A significant number of those touting the peril of rampant Satanism in America, including law enforcement officers who organize seminars on the subject, turn out to be Christian fundamentalists; their sects explicitly require a literal devil to be meddling in everyday human life. (Sagan, 159)
The witch hunt continues to this very day, as does the argument surrounding the existence of Satanic ritual abuse. Through nothing more than “association,” The Church of Satan and its members have been the primary scapegoats throughout the struggle. The first official group to claim Satanism as a viable alternative to orthodox religions, The Church of Satan is the most widespread and widely recognized organization of its type. (Although this organization does not publicly release membership information, an official US Army pamphlet published in 1978, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains, estimated that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to twenty thousand official Church of Satan members at that time.) (Roleff, 6)
Due to a myriad of preconceived notions popularized and fostered by prevailing religious beliefs, Satanism as advocated by the Church bears little if no resemblance to the myths that have been perpetuated over the last millennium. Paramount is the claims of ritual abuse and bloodletting that are allegedly an integral part of Satanic practice. In two of the eleven rules on which Satanic philosophy was founded, Anton LaVey specifically states that Satanists should under no circumstances harm children, and should not kill animals except as a necessary food source, or in self-defense. “Unlike many religions and philosophies, Satanism respects and exalts life. Children and animals are the purest expressions of that life force, and as such are held sacred and precious in the eyes of the Satanist.” (LaVey, At Issue, 24) Such tenets are a far cry from the spurious claims of sadistic devil cultists who find favor with a prince of darkness through blood rituals.
Contrary to popular belief, Satanists do not worship the devil, or any other deity; “Satan” is nothing more than a symbol of the carnal nature of humanity. In addition to being stalwart atheists, Satanists consider themselves law abiding citizens; on the rare occasion a member is discovered and proven to be involved in criminal activity, their membership is immediately revoked and all affiliation withdrawn. All applicants are interviewed and carefully screened to minimize such happenstances by ensuring that potential member first have a full grasp of the tenets and abide by them. Drugs are discouraged because they hinder the individual’s ability to rationalize clearly. The Church of Satan is usually referred to as a “cult” by its detractors, even though the organization does not fit any of the various definitions usually offered within academic circles. Members are never “recruited;” all applicants come to the Church of their own volition, and can conveniently cancel their membership and affiliation at any time. Satanism encourages education and free thought, which is the antithesis of the cult mentality. “Magic” is performed by some Satanists, but these are nothing more than personalized rituals—often psychodrama—used as form of psychological catharsis that cannot be met by other means of creative self-expression. Satanism is a philosophy that bears more resemblance to secular humanism than it does any “religion.” In short, Satanists are iconoclasts whom share a base set of values that significantly differentiates them from the majority of people who hold a more orthodox view of the world.
So why have rumors of Satanic Ritual Abuse persisted, even to this day? Why have Satanists been singled out with such maliciously vilifying stereotypes, even when everything points to the contrary? Anton LaVey sums up the contention of a Satanic conspiracy best with the last of The Nine Satanic Statements: “Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!” (LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 25)
Works Cited
Smith, Michelle, & Pazder, Lawrence. Michelle Remembers. New York: Congdon & Lattes, 1980.
Spanos, Nicholas P. “Multiple Identities & False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective.” Psychological Bulletin 116.1 (July 1994): 143.
de Young, Mary. The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Company, 2004.
Norton, Richard A. (2008). “McMartin Preschool Trial.” Wikipedia. 2008. 2 Mar. 2009
Passaintino, Bob, and Passaintino, Gretchen. “The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse.” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1992): 20.
Roleff, Tamara L. “Introduction.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Magill, Gordan A. “Satanic Ritual Abuse Is a Problem.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Johnson, John, and Padilla, Steve. “Satanism: Skeptics Abound.” Los Angeles Times. 23 Apr. 1991: A1. Los Angeles Times. ProQuest. Everett Community Coll. LMC, WA. 3 Mar. 2009.
Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
LaVey, Anton S. “The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.” 1967. 2 Mar. 2009.
LaVey, Anton S. “Church of Satan’s Advice to Youth.” At Issue: Satanism. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. California: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
LaVey, Anton S. The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books, 1969.
But I Digress...
My name is Scott Aaron Stine, and I am addicted to run-on sentences.
The persistent use and abuse of run-on sentences in my work has always been one of my greatest failings as a wordsmith, which has been emphatically pointed out to me by several astute advisors over the previous weeks; for whatever reason, I have always been reticent about employing periods, so have instead learned how to capitalize on the liberal use of commas, colons, semi-colons, hyphens and parenthesis that the English language has unwarily placed at my disposal (as well as a sheer abundance of colorful adjectives and obsolete expressions) in order to keep my dictated stream of consciousness flowing, unobstructed by those pesky little harbingers of doom, those typographical singularities, whilst adhering to (at least to the best of my modest ability) the venerated rules of grammar so that the only grievance readers have with my penchant for excessive verbosity is the lengthy, protracted nature of the syntax itself... a constructive criticism and sound argument which I acknowledge and duly accept with few or no reservations on my behalf.
Shoot… I forgot to squeeze a colon in there somewhere. Just give me a minute…
The persistent use and abuse of run-on sentences in my work has always been one of my greatest failings as a wordsmith, which has been emphatically pointed out to me by several astute advisors over the previous weeks; for whatever reason, I have always been reticent about employing periods, so have instead learned how to capitalize on the liberal use of commas, colons, semi-colons, hyphens and parenthesis that the English language has unwarily placed at my disposal (as well as a sheer abundance of colorful adjectives and obsolete expressions) in order to keep my dictated stream of consciousness flowing, unobstructed by those pesky little harbingers of doom, those typographical singularities, whilst adhering to (at least to the best of my modest ability) the venerated rules of grammar so that the only grievance readers have with my penchant for excessive verbosity is the lengthy, protracted nature of the syntax itself... a constructive criticism and sound argument which I acknowledge and duly accept with few or no reservations on my behalf.
Shoot… I forgot to squeeze a colon in there somewhere. Just give me a minute…
Preface to
My Inventory of Being Earnest
As a creative way to introduce ourselves to our instructor and our English 098 classmates, we were given our first discussion board assignment: To rewrite and personalize Lea Waits poem “The Inventory of Being.” My first draft mirrored it in structure, but for this revised version, I made some heavy edits, which included removing some lines, and expand or combining others.
This piece provided an excellent means with which to introduce ourselves as well as become acquainted with others in the classroom. This was not only important in making the individual more comfortable, it was an invaluable tool in giving us an overview of the members who would make up our target audience over the next three months. I think more classes—both online and off—would benefit greatly from assigning such an exercise.
This piece provided an excellent means with which to introduce ourselves as well as become acquainted with others in the classroom. This was not only important in making the individual more comfortable, it was an invaluable tool in giving us an overview of the members who would make up our target audience over the next three months. I think more classes—both online and off—would benefit greatly from assigning such an exercise.
My Inventory of Being Earnest
My name is Scott Aaron Stine.
I am older than I look but younger than I feel. Occasionally, though, I do act my age.
I love and respect my immediate family, but have little use for the remaining branches of my family tree. Without a shred of guilt, I have exercised my right to use pruning shears on many, many occasions.
As a writer, an artist, and a musician, I am legend in my own mind. And maybe in the minds of my niece and nephew… at least until they get a little older and realize just how big of a hack I really am.
I play guitar, as well as several other instruments with varying degrees of skill, but after twenty years I still can't read a lick of music. Whether I can actually play well is, though, still up for debate.
I am the product of a heavy Scoth-Irish heritage. I have the red hair and temper to show for it. (Admittedly, I am partial to spirits as well, and I have yet to meet a potato I did not like. Those spirits that are made from potatoes are doubly blessed.)
I am an atheist and a skeptic, and believe that we only have one life in which to experience and accomplish everything that is within our power. When I go down, it will be kicking and screaming, and not scrambling for any light at the end of a tunnel.
I am an ardent ailurophile (i.e. a lover of cats), despite a hypersensitivity to these four-legged friends. Unfortunately for my allergies, cats tend to love me as well.
I love Chinese food. And—to the regret of our porcine friends the world over--bacon. I blame nature for making them so tasty.
I could not live without books, music and art. To me, these are the things that ultimately set us apart from animals, not opposable thumbs. Admittedly, though, having thumbs at ones disposal does make it easier to accomplish such tasks.
I love all things related to books, reading as well as collecting and publishing. Since I am also a clinically diagnosed obsessive-compulsive, it should come as no surprise that I have a lot of books. No… I mean a lot of books.
I am a cinephile, and have probably seen more films than anyone else you know or have met, especially when it comes to horror and exploitation fare. Good and bad. Especially bad. (Hence my maxim of “Too Many Bad Films… So Few Brain Cells.”)
I do not understand racism, sexism and homophobia. I believe that it is inherently wrong to hate someone for their ethnicity, their gender or sexual proclivities... especially when there are so many perfectly good reasons to hate people. (Thank you for that nugget of undefiled wisdom, Emo.)
Life would be better without having to deal with inconsiderate and disrespectful people on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this pet peeve of mine takes the guise of several million individuals. On second though, make that several billion.
Life would probably also be better without reality television, which primarily focuses on inconsiderate and disrespectful people... but then, I am loathe to admit, dinner time would not be nearly as interesting.
I don't spend too much on anything... I just don't have enough money to spend on all of the things I want. If I was rich, I would do what I do now, just more of it.
In addition to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, I also suffer from Tourette's Syndrome; unfortunately, I cannot blame my foul mouth on the latter, only some annoying tics. Any vulgar epithets to escape my lips are entirely the conscious product of my utter dissatisfaction.
I am also a chronic insomniac; if I were able to actually sleep twenty-three hours a day, so be it. (If eating wasn’t such an inconveniencing necessity, I’d go the full 24/7.)
I hope to be living on my own before too long. To be alone can be a very good thing. Especially if one is a misanthrope with OCD like myself.
I am attending college with the intent of securing a major in Fine Arts and/or Literature, in the hopes I will never have to work as a cashier in a thrift store ever again.
The epithet on my tombstone will read "Now He's Really Pissed." I’m not joking. It’s in my will.
My name is Scott Aaron Stine and this is my Inventory of Being Earnest.
I am older than I look but younger than I feel. Occasionally, though, I do act my age.
I love and respect my immediate family, but have little use for the remaining branches of my family tree. Without a shred of guilt, I have exercised my right to use pruning shears on many, many occasions.
As a writer, an artist, and a musician, I am legend in my own mind. And maybe in the minds of my niece and nephew… at least until they get a little older and realize just how big of a hack I really am.
I play guitar, as well as several other instruments with varying degrees of skill, but after twenty years I still can't read a lick of music. Whether I can actually play well is, though, still up for debate.
I am the product of a heavy Scoth-Irish heritage. I have the red hair and temper to show for it. (Admittedly, I am partial to spirits as well, and I have yet to meet a potato I did not like. Those spirits that are made from potatoes are doubly blessed.)
I am an atheist and a skeptic, and believe that we only have one life in which to experience and accomplish everything that is within our power. When I go down, it will be kicking and screaming, and not scrambling for any light at the end of a tunnel.
I am an ardent ailurophile (i.e. a lover of cats), despite a hypersensitivity to these four-legged friends. Unfortunately for my allergies, cats tend to love me as well.
I love Chinese food. And—to the regret of our porcine friends the world over--bacon. I blame nature for making them so tasty.
I could not live without books, music and art. To me, these are the things that ultimately set us apart from animals, not opposable thumbs. Admittedly, though, having thumbs at ones disposal does make it easier to accomplish such tasks.
I love all things related to books, reading as well as collecting and publishing. Since I am also a clinically diagnosed obsessive-compulsive, it should come as no surprise that I have a lot of books. No… I mean a lot of books.
I am a cinephile, and have probably seen more films than anyone else you know or have met, especially when it comes to horror and exploitation fare. Good and bad. Especially bad. (Hence my maxim of “Too Many Bad Films… So Few Brain Cells.”)
I do not understand racism, sexism and homophobia. I believe that it is inherently wrong to hate someone for their ethnicity, their gender or sexual proclivities... especially when there are so many perfectly good reasons to hate people. (Thank you for that nugget of undefiled wisdom, Emo.)
Life would be better without having to deal with inconsiderate and disrespectful people on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this pet peeve of mine takes the guise of several million individuals. On second though, make that several billion.
Life would probably also be better without reality television, which primarily focuses on inconsiderate and disrespectful people... but then, I am loathe to admit, dinner time would not be nearly as interesting.
I don't spend too much on anything... I just don't have enough money to spend on all of the things I want. If I was rich, I would do what I do now, just more of it.
In addition to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, I also suffer from Tourette's Syndrome; unfortunately, I cannot blame my foul mouth on the latter, only some annoying tics. Any vulgar epithets to escape my lips are entirely the conscious product of my utter dissatisfaction.
I am also a chronic insomniac; if I were able to actually sleep twenty-three hours a day, so be it. (If eating wasn’t such an inconveniencing necessity, I’d go the full 24/7.)
I hope to be living on my own before too long. To be alone can be a very good thing. Especially if one is a misanthrope with OCD like myself.
I am attending college with the intent of securing a major in Fine Arts and/or Literature, in the hopes I will never have to work as a cashier in a thrift store ever again.
The epithet on my tombstone will read "Now He's Really Pissed." I’m not joking. It’s in my will.
My name is Scott Aaron Stine and this is my Inventory of Being Earnest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+One-Sheet.jpg)
+One-Sheet.jpg)
+One-Sheet.jpg)
